No More Lethal Lorries - Petition
Comments
-
lardboy wrote:
Looks like a spot of mixed messaging going on. Let's have lovely cycle lanes exactly where cyclists shouldn't be if a lorry pulls up. Filter on the right; much safer all round.
Vivid as this image is, something has been bugging me about it, and I think I've put my finger on it at last.
Who got to the junction first?
If the cyclists (or some of them) were there first, waiting, and the artic pulls alongside, then the driver has no legitimate basis to say "blind spot". He will have seen them ahead as he approached the junction. If he then pulls alongside such that they are in his blind spot, unless he sees them emerge from the blind spot, he has to assume they are still there.
But what if the artic is there first? The cyclist(s) accumulate alongside the cab, out of sight. Now here it is the cyclist(s) who have (perhaps unwittingly) walked into the killing zone. I would guess that the only way for the driver to see them is to keep an eye on his nearside wing mirror most, if not all of the time, to catch them before they ride into the blind spot. Hardly practical.
The problem with that poster as I therefore see it is that it doesn't provide a solution to the problem it highlights. Which rather begs the question: what is the solution?
My practice is to hold back, behind the rear of an artic, until it is stationary, and I think there is both room and space to pass it on the left before it starts moving. In that example, if I were first to the junction I'd be pissed off that the artic pulled alongside me, but I'd most likely risk sneaking into the left travelling traffic sooner than I might otherwise do so in order to separate me from it. If I were second to the junction, I'd queue behind the artic.0 -
jedster wrote:I always think this argument that we should ban LGV's with blind spots from the roads is utterly, utterly ridiculous.
Almost every country in the world uses heavy truck designs that are broadly similar, including countries that are much more "pro-cycling" than Britain.
The cost to the economy of replacing big trucks with smaller trucks would be substantial (in efficiency terms). And you would need to set that against the relatively small number of cyclists killed in truck blind spots. It would be a huge cost per life saved.
Before anyone says "you can't put a price on a life", please grow up. That is exactly what we HAVE to do. If we spend resources on less efficent truck transport we will have less left for paying for healthcare, public transport, safe road design, all of which I am confident would deliver more bang for the buck in terms of lives saved.
There are lots of things in our lives that could be made safer but they have a cost. Just think we could:
reduce the urban speed limit to 10mph
we could put jubilee extenstion style platform barriers on all tube lines.
Personally I think we should continue to ask people to be take care when they drive, take care not to push people off crowded platforms and take care not to cycle up inside trucks.
Rant over.
J
A rather sensless idiotic rant if I may say so.
Lets abolish all safety legislation as it all costs as well.
Lets abolish laws regarding speeding - the money saved in policing costs could be spent on healthcare etc
come to think of it lets abolish all laws- no need for police, courts, lawyers etc- think of all the money saved - lots of costs saved there
Well there is if you are so narrow minded and myopic that all you are interested in is £sWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
spen666 wrote:jedster wrote:I always think this argument that we should ban LGV's with blind spots from the roads is utterly, utterly ridiculous.
Almost every country in the world uses heavy truck designs that are broadly similar, including countries that are much more "pro-cycling" than Britain.
The cost to the economy of replacing big trucks with smaller trucks would be substantial (in efficiency terms). And you would need to set that against the relatively small number of cyclists killed in truck blind spots. It would be a huge cost per life saved.
Before anyone says "you can't put a price on a life", please grow up. That is exactly what we HAVE to do. If we spend resources on less efficent truck transport we will have less left for paying for healthcare, public transport, safe road design, all of which I am confident would deliver more bang for the buck in terms of lives saved.
There are lots of things in our lives that could be made safer but they have a cost. Just think we could:
reduce the urban speed limit to 10mph
we could put jubilee extenstion style platform barriers on all tube lines.
Personally I think we should continue to ask people to be take care when they drive, take care not to push people off crowded platforms and take care not to cycle up inside trucks.
Rant over.
J
A rather sensless idiotic rant if I may say so.
Lets abolish all safety legislation as it all costs as well.
Lets abolish laws regarding speeding - the money saved in policing costs could be spent on healthcare etc
come to think of it lets abolish all laws- no need for police, courts, lawyers etc- think of all the money saved - lots of costs saved there
Well there is if you are so narrow minded and myopic that all you are interested in is £s
Would you like a man with a flag?0 -
Ha ha ha Spen you really do miss the point spectacularly.
My point is not that we should not invest money to save lives but we should be careful to spend it where it has most benefit. I think there are many better life saving investments than banning heavy trucks. I want to save as many lives as possible given scarce resources.
Incidently (and I mean incidently), Bill Gates went after malaria because it offers the biggest bang for the buck on the planet.0 -
Greg66 wrote:lardboy wrote:
Looks like a spot of mixed messaging going on. Let's have lovely cycle lanes exactly where cyclists shouldn't be if a lorry pulls up. Filter on the right; much safer all round.
Vivid as this image is, something has been bugging me about it, and I think I've put my finger on it at last.
Who got to the junction first?
If the cyclists (or some of them) were there first, waiting, and the artic pulls alongside, then the driver has no legitimate basis to say "blind spot". He will have seen them ahead as he approached the junction. If he then pulls alongside such that they are in his blind spot, unless he sees them emerge from the blind spot, he has to assume they are still there.
But what if the artic is there first? The cyclist(s) accumulate alongside the cab, out of sight. Now here it is the cyclist(s) who have (perhaps unwittingly) walked into the killing zone. I would guess that the only way for the driver to see them is to keep an eye on his nearside wing mirror most, if not all of the time, to catch them before they ride into the blind spot. Hardly practical.
The problem with that poster as I therefore see it is that it doesn't provide a solution to the problem it highlights. Which rather begs the question: what is the solution?
My practice is to hold back, behind the rear of an artic, until it is stationary, and I think there is both room and space to pass it on the left before it starts moving. In that example, if I were first to the junction I'd be pissed off that the artic pulled alongside me, but I'd most likely risk sneaking into the left travelling traffic sooner than I might otherwise do so in order to separate me from it. If I were second to the junction, I'd queue behind the artic.
You only need to watch the cycle lane on the Embankment leading up to Vauzhall bridge to see this in practice. There will usually be a peleton of bikes alongside a lorry (even if it's in the left filter lane).0 -
One safety investment I suspect would have a good return would be removing any cycle lane like that. It doesnt even have an ASL to get into. It sucks cyclists into pulling alongside a truck. Just beyond stupid.
The other thing with these features is the impact goes beyon that junction, it tends to make cyclists think it is OK in general to take up that kind of road position.0 -
How costly/disruptive would it be to, say, not allow lorries on roads which have heavy bicycle traffic during rush-hour? Or roads where a lorry vs bike situation is likely to both occur and be dangerous?0
-
jedster wrote:The cost to the economy of replacing big trucks with smaller trucks would be substantial (in efficiency terms). And you would need to set that against the relatively small number of cyclists killed in truck blind spots. It would be a huge cost per life saved.
It might be less efficient for the delivery company, but there are the external factors as well, and not just cyclist deaths! For example, on my route home there's a McDonalds (Acton) which gets its deliveries via a huge articulated lorry which, when parked up, partially blocks the road. This causes a *lot* of traffic congestion, wasted time and wasted fuel; clearly this isn't a problem for McDonalds, but the externalities are there and should be in the mix when we look at overall efficiency.0 -
spen666 wrote:The Beginner wrote:
Ok well I'll take away your fridge, freezer, bed, and your bike, none would be delivered without trucks.spen666 wrote:It would be even better if we did not allow on our roads vehicles with blind spots that prevent them seeing other road users
Lorry drivers need to be aware of blind spots and how they can minimise the impact, I agree, but cyclists need to be aware of the same blind spots and not put themselves in them!
If I can't get right in fornt of a Lorry, then I saty behind, easy really!
Lots of vehicles (including bikes) on the road have blindspots simply as the nut holding the wheel doesn't look there anyway......
Simon
Simply saying blindspots exist is not acceptable.
We must redesign vehicles to eliminate such blindspots or if that is not possible we need to rethink freight distribution. How about more rail useage and then smaller vehicles from railheads. Cost more for delivery ? yes, but what price on a life
Great more vehicles on the road. just what the cycle commuter needs.
P.s. do you think that these smaller vehicles wouldn't have blind spots?0 -
Blue Meanie wrote:Yup,
I've sat in a truck cab, driven one too around an old work's carpark.
Have a full, clean driving licence (and a car - See, cyclists do pay road tax)
Been a Black Cab Driver.
Been a Cycle Courier.
It does help if you can 'see yourself as others see you'.
+1.
Signed. Cheers, OSK.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
I just noticed - well, LCC did just do a mail out - another tug-of-meaning around the lorry image here:
http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?Pageid=2130
EDIT: though I have doubts about their counter poster - http://www.lcc.org.uk/images//HGV_spoke_card_372.jpg - anyone in front of the rear axle is relying on driver competence. Behind the rear axle of a left-turning lorry you're relying on the laws of physics. Which would you trust most?0 -
While everyone is in a petition signing mood, write to your MEP, it only takes minutes, and all the details you need are a click away. http://www.writetothem.com/
You're on here, you have time to spare a few minutes putting together a quick letter (yes you have to write your own) saying why your MEP should sign the European Parliament Written Declaration 81 on improving road safety through the elimination of blind spots around lorries (trucks).
More info here -but don't copy the letter inthe first post and paste it, for reasons you'll see in the thread!
LFGSS thread0
